1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. 2. Positive assertions are necessary. 3. Rational is as rational does. 4. The golden rule is symmetrical. 5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief.
Though Shermer starts out arguing pragmatically, he slips up and makes a couple of moral arguments. He argues based on the ultimate transcendent moral value (in his worldview): Human freedom.
Shermer says, "A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others."
Notice how Shermer smuggles in the language of natural law? Words like "higher" and "principle" seem oddly out of place to one whose worldview is that ultimate reality is matter in motion.
Kudos to Shermer for attempting to calm down the militants. Without transcendent moral principles, however, his moral argument can be defeated by simply asking "says who?"